Do Metro police think they’re above the law?
To the editor:
Friday's lead article, "Police unions advise silence," prompts me, and certainly many other citizens, to ask two questions:
First, do Las Vegas police officers and their union leaders believe that they are above the law or any legal process?
Second, if Las Vegas officers have acted correctly in their use of deadly force, what are they afraid of when that process finds those actions justified?
I realize that in our 21st century urban environments, municipal police officers face greatly increased dangers. But like anyone at any level given the authority to use deadly force by our governments, they must be held accountable for their actions.
Jack Corrick
Boulder City
Clamming up
To the editor:
So now Chris Collins, president of the Las Vegas Police Protective Association, is advising police officers to remain mute during investigations into police killings (Friday Review-Journal).
So, in essence, members of Metro don't even have to give us a reason anymore when they shoot us.
I'm purchasing my Kevlar vest today before they ban the sale of them.
Kipp Altemara
Las Vegas
Facing chaos
To the editor:
In response to the Tuesday story, "Inquest changes approved":
Where are the families of the police officers in this system? These spouses, children and parents live in constant concern that their loved ones might not make it home each and every time they are called out into a city filled with violence.
Families of law enforcement officers know that each call brings only a hint of the information they need to plan their response. Each scene presents the unexpected. The use of deadly force is not a game for these well-trained officers.
Taking a life to save lives is a dreaded possibility. But the first obligation is to come home to your family.
The rule of law has its costs, and breaking down the respect for authority, as our culture has succeeded in doing, results in defiance and challenge. Pour on the alcohol and drugs and we are facing chaos here, folks.
Now let those whose families engage in lawlessness determine whether cops should be charged with murder.
Only those on the payroll, and the lawyers in the shadows waiting to file the new raft of lawsuits by family members, will benefit from this change. Our law-abiding citizens stand to gain nothing.
Ginny Rommel
Las Vegas
Real wit
To the editor:
Thank you for publishing the "year in review" article by Dave Barry in the Sunday Viewpoints section. I can't remember when I have laughed so hard at anything connected to the year 2010.
Dave Barry is truly a great contemporary wit.
Paul A. Frano
Henderson
Simple steps
To the editor:
Monday's editorial, "Shaky financing," correctly points out that Medicare and Social Security are partially welfare programs. As such, they need to be means-tested. This is done for Social Security benefits, where up to 85 percent of the payments are subject to income tax. This also should be done for Medicare and prescription drug benefits.
All taxes derived from these programs should go back to their respective trust funds, rather than to the U.S. Treasury.
Taking these simple steps should greatly increase the fiscal viability of these worthwhile programs.
Henry Schmid
Las Vegas
Not far off
To the editor:
In response to your Dec. 28 editorial highlighting the "astounding ignorance" of many Americans who falsely believe that the phrase "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" can be attributed to one of the Founding Fathers rather than its proper author, the "founder" of communism, Karl Marx:
While this is indeed troubling, the 15 percent of respondents who credited the statement to Barack Obama show a great and even remarkable insight, on a practical level, in knowing that is the direction in which our president seems to be taking our United States: "From those who have earned, to those who have not earned."
They may not have had the knowledge to know the true author, but their answer doesn't seem at all ignorant of a relevant fact.
Lee Bernstein
Las Vegas
Bad weather
To the editor:
Your Dec. 29 lead editorial ("Global warming?") predictably coincided with the first big blizzards of the year in the United States and Europe.
Two questions, though:
-- Why did we not get similar global warming "hoax" editorials last summer, when the United States and Europe were scorching under heat waves?
-- When will the Review-Journal editorial page staff figure out the difference between weather and climate?
Stan Smith
Las Vegas
